EDWIN C. REISINGER Appellant
CLAUDIA E. REISINGER (n/k/a/ Simonson), et al. Appellee
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 07DR067915
BRANDON G. OLIVER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
J. GILL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN JUDGE.
Appellant, Edwin Reisinger, appeals an order of the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
that found him in contempt and appointed a receiver. This
Court affirms in part and reverses in part.
Mr. Reisinger and Claudia Simonson, f.k.a. Reisinger,
divorced in 2008 after twenty-eight years of marriage. The
parties' two children were emancipated, and the parties
entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all of the
issues related to the division of their property and to
spousal support. The terms of that agreement, which the trial
court incorporated into the divorce decree, required Mr.
Reisinger to pay Ms. Simonson the sum of $310, 000 and set
forth a payment schedule under which the full amount of the
debt would be paid in ten years by means of a series of
annual and monthly installments commencing July 1, 2008.
Within four months, Ms. Simonson filed her first of many
motions alleging that Mr. Reisinger was in contempt of the
divorce decree. For a few years, Mr. Reisinger made
inconsistent payments-falling into contempt, then meeting the
purge conditions. He made no payments in 2013 or 2014. On
November 24, 2014, the parties resolved a pending motion for
contempt by memorializing a revised payment plan that the
trial court incorporated into a journal entry. At that time,
the parties agreed that $217, 300 remained due under the
On October 18, 2017, Ms. Simonson filed another motion for
contempt against Mr. Reisinger, arguing that he had failed to
make any payment since May 2016 and that the balance
remaining under the terms of the settlement memorialized in
the divorce decree was $204, 300. Ms. Simonson also moved for
the appointment of a receiver to sell a parcel of property
that Mr. Reisinger had recently acquired by inheritance
("the inherited property") and to add RCE Farm LLC,
an entity solely owned by Mr. Reisinger into which he had
transferred title of that property, as a third-party
The trial court's magistrate issued an "emergency
order" on October 20, 2017, that purported to join RCE
Farm LLC as a party and restrained Mr. Reisinger from
selling, alienating, or encumbering the property at issue.
That order, which was captioned as a judgment entry rather
than a magistrate's order, was signed only by the
magistrate. The trial court did not enter judgment joining
RCE Farm LLC as a party at that time.
On July 6, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision concluding
that Mr. Reisinger was in contempt of the divorce decree and
the November 24, 2014, order, recommended a sentence, and set
purge conditions for the contempt. The magistrate's order
also provided that Ms. Simonson's motion for a receiver
was granted and, on the same date, the trial court issued a
separate judgment entry appointing the receiver and setting
forth the terms of the receivership.
Mr. Reisinger filed objections to the magistrate's
decision related to contempt and to the decision granting the
motion to appoint the receiver. He also objected to the
magistrate's October 20, 2017, entry that purported to
join RCE Farm LLC as a party. On November 15, 2018, the trial
court overruled each of the objections and entered judgment
finding Mr. Reisinger in contempt of the divorce decree and
the November 20, 2014, order. The trial court sentenced him
to thirty days in jail, but suspended the sentence and
provided Mr. Reisinger the opportunity to purge the contempt
by "complying with the former payment arrangement and
cooperating with the appointed Receiver * * * in relation to
the sale of the inherited property. The trial court also
restated that the motion for a receiver was granted,
referencing the judgment entry of July 6, 2018. The trial
court did not order the joinder of RCE Farm LLC in its
judgment entry, although it did resolve Mr. Reisinger's
objection related to that issue.
Mr. Reisinger appealed the November 15, 2018, judgment. His
four assignments of error are ...